Substantial evidence for significant improvement in healing was identified only for some dressings. CONCLUSION Evidence for the superiority of some MMP-inhibiting wound dressings exists regarding wound closure, wound size reduction, healing time and healing rate. More research is required to substantiate the existing evidence for different types of hard-to-heal wounds and to generate evidence for some of the different types of MMP-inhibiting wound dressings.OBJECTIVE Children are at high risk of injuries and wounds. The application of medical grade honey is a promising approach to improving the healing of wounds of various origin and severity. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/Vorinostat-saha.html However, the use of medical grade honey in young paediatric patients remains limited. The aim of this study is to show the safety, efficacy and usefulness of medical grade honey in abdominal wounds, of different causes, in paediatric patients. METHOD This was a prospective, observational case series evaluating five young infants with abdominal wounds at the General Hospital in Thessaloniki. All wounds were treated in the same manner with daily medical grade honey applied to the wound area and closely monitored. RESULTS All treated wounds rapidly presented granulation tissue formation and underwent re-epithelialisation. Peripheral oedema and inflammation decreased upon initial application. Necrotic tissue was effectively debrided when present. Slough was removed and no signs of infection were detected, irrespective of initial wound presentations. Scar formation was minimal and the full range of motion was preserved in all cases. CONCLUSION Based on this case study, medical grade honey is safe and effective in treating different abdominal wounds, including infected or dehisced wounds as well as burns. The easy application and broad applicability make medical grade honey recommendable as a first-line treatment in paediatric patients.Mechanical debridement can be considered as an alternative to surgical debridement if surgery is not available, or is considered impractical or too high risk. One form of selective mechanical debridement is ultrasonic-assisted wound (UAW) debridement. As the published evidence on this is limited, a closed international expert meeting was held to review the existing evidence base on it, present preliminary findings of research currently in progress and discuss individual cases selected from the clinical experts' own practice. The panel also explored the potential barriers to the implementation of UAW debridement and how these might be addressed. It concluded there is sufficient evidence that UAW debridement is an effective method of cleansing and debriding almost all hard-to-heal wounds. Patients who are most likely to benefit from it are not medically stable, on anticoagulants, unable to visit a hospital for wound treatment, and/or have wounds with a poor vascular supply or are close to critical structures. The panel also observed that UAW debridement can be used to prepare the wound for negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) or as an adjunctive to it. Given the potential to experience pain during the procedure, the panel considered that patients will benefit from topical analgesia. The panel noted that health professionals, patients and visitors must be protected from the aerosolisation associated with UAW, to reduce risk of cross-contamination.Biosimilars have the potential to broaden patient access to biologics and provide cost savings for health care systems. During the development of a biosimilar, data that directly compare the proposed biosimilar with the reference product are required. Such comparative data are generated in a stepwise hierarchical process that begins with extensive laboratory-based structural analyses and functional assays. This initial analytical phase serves as the foundation for the demonstration of biosimilarity and is followed by nonclinical in vivo testing (if required) and then clinical evaluation, including a comparative pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study that is usually conducted in healthy volunteers. The development program typically culminates with a comparative clinical efficacy study. The aim of this study is to confirm clinical equivalence of the potential biosimilar and reference product on the basis of prespecified margins, using a study population and efficacy end point that are sufficiently sensitive for detecting potential product-related differences. Such studies also include detailed analyses of safety as well as evaluation of immunogenicity. As biosimilars become more widely available in oncology, especially with recent regulatory approvals of rituximab, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab biosimilars, it is critically important that clinicians understand how the comparative clinical study differs from a traditional phase III efficacy and safety study in the development of a novel biologic originator product. Here, we review the role of comparative clinical studies in biosimilar development, with a focus on trials conducted to support approved trastuzumab biosimilars. We discuss the study populations and end points used, extrapolation of indications, and the confirmatory nature of these studies within the totality of evidence supporting biosimilarity.PURPOSE Radiation dose to the neuroregenerative zone of the hippocampus has been found to be associated with cognitive toxicity. Hippocampal avoidance (HA) using intensity-modulated radiotherapy during whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is hypothesized to preserve cognition. METHODS This phase III trial enrolled adult patients with brain metastases to HA-WBRT plus memantine or WBRT plus memantine. The primary end point was time to cognitive function failure, defined as decline using the reliable change index on at least one of the cognitive tests. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), intracranial progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and patient-reported symptom burden. RESULTS Between July 2015 and March 2018, 518 patients were randomly assigned. Median follow-up for alive patients was 7.9 months. Risk of cognitive failure was significantly lower after HA-WBRT plus memantine versus WBRT plus memantine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95; P = .02). This difference was attributable to less deterioration in executive function at 4 months (23.